The Future of Consumerist

Over the last twelve years, Consumerist has been a steadfast proponent and voice on behalf of consumers, from exposing shady practices by secretive cable companies to pushing for action against dodgy payday lenders. Now, we’re joining forces with Consumer Reports, our parent organization, to cultivate the next generation of consumer advocacy.

Stay tuned as Consumerist’s current and future content finds its home as a part of the Consumer Reports brand. In the meantime, you can access existing Consumerist content below, and we encourage you to visit Consumer Reports to read the latest consumer news.

The cost of one man’s Las Vegas bachelor party could end up being a lot higher than airfare, hotel and gambling expenses if a Chicago woman gets her way. Claiming breach of promise, she’s suing her former fiance for at least $62,814 in wedding expenses after he got caught sowing his wild oats in Sin City.

The couple were to have been married last August, but with about a month to go before the blessed event, the groom and his pals headed off to Vegas to live out their dreams of maybe stealing Mike Tyson’s tiger. While there, the groom apparently had some sort of biblical knowledge of a woman he’d met at a nightclub.

The bride-to-be later spotted texts on her fiance’s phone leading her to believe that something illicit had occurred, leading to this soundbite from the lawsuit:

That PLAINTIFF expressly inquired about [the woman] to DEFENDANT, and DEFENDANT, seemingly believing that “what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas,” denied that anything happened between himself and [the woman] in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Then, per the lawsuit, her fiance attempted to move out of the apartment they share together while she was away at work. He eventually admitted that something had happened in Vegas but denied having sex with the other woman.

At this point, the fiance put the kibosh on the wedding, allegedly leaving his former fiancee with thousands in expenses related to the ceremony and reception, many of them non- or only partially refundable.

The lawsuit states that, by becoming engaged to be married, the former fiance had a “fiduciary duty of implied fidelity” and that he “breached that duty when he engaged in sexual intercourse with a stranger while co-workers, friends and family members, all acquainted with PLAINTIFF, were present in an adjoining hotel room.”

“This tort does exist, as does the tort of outrage, [and] she has filed suit alleging both,” a legal expert tells AOL News. “She is entitled to seek full recompense for her financial outlays, and I believe she gets to keep the ring.”